Pages

Monday, February 22, 2016

There's a new horror trend emerging that is taking average joe moviegoer a little bit of time to come to terms with. Recently, good filmmakers have done away with both jump scares and gore. Jump scares are the cheap way of getting a reaction out of an audience there to see a 'scary' movie. They are not so much scary, as they are manipulative. The 'jump scare' used to have a bit of tact to it. Early M. Night Shyamalan and currently James Wan are both big users of jump scares. However, their talent also lies in their writing. They are able to create such a dark and sinister atmosphere that the jump scares felt warranted instead of cheap. This, in turn, led to movies using the jump scare as a crutch. Recent films like The Forest and The Boy both employed this method and did terribly in the box office. Gore, on the other hand, is an even cheaper crutch because instead of trying to effectively scare the audience, it's trying to gross them the hell out. This is not scary. So, recently, filmmakers have started to do away with both and utilize a terrifying story about unseen entities and creepy situations. The biggest proponent of this was The Babadook, an underrated horror film that your standard teenage horror film fan was confused about. It didn't pop out and startle you, it slowly built up in order to creep you out the entire time. This is good horror. A highly-praised film, It Follows also used this method. It received a lot of attention and acclaim... though I have to say I didn't care for it. Yes, it was effectively creepy and tense, but by the end it felt like I had been pranked. So, this long-winded explanation leads me to explain why most "average" fans will probably not enjoy The Witch, even though it's one of the best horror films I've seen in the past few years.

The Witch is not a movie that uses gore (though there is some pretty messed up stuff that happens). It is not a movie that relies on jump scares to keep the audience interested (there are none). It's a slow burn of a film that takes advantage of its terrifying ambiance, its unbelievably creepy soundtrack, and its time period to scare the living shit out of anyone in the theater that is willing to sit back and understand that nothing is going to pop out from behind the trees. The Witch tells the story of a family of Puritans who have been, essentially, exiled from their village in London and moved toward the outskirts of the woods. They grow crops, they raise animals, and they speak of God often. However, almost immediately into the story the infant son of the family goes missing at the hands of a witch in the woods. The family starts to slowly break apart blaming God and asking for forgiveness for any number of ridiculous sins they may or may not have committed. This leads the patriarch and matriarch of the family to begin to separate emotionally as well as call into question the motivations of their eldest daughter, Thomasin. Little by little and slowly but surely the family breaks down, is picked off, and essentially lose their minds which leads to some very uncomfortable and dark scenes.

Now, if you weren't raised in a particularly strict Christian household the events depicted on screen may seem a bit strange. Every "bad" occurrence in the film is repented by the family immediately. Prayers and offerings to God are aplenty because this family's entire reason for existing is to serve the Lord and when things go awry, clearly God is angry. I imagine this is a pretty apt depiction of what it was like to grow up in Ted Cruz's house. But, along with trying to make you piss your shorts, the film does a pretty good examination of the folly that is Puritanical Christianity.

The story itself is a pretty good one and it's based off of records of witch trials from the time period, events that inevitably led to the Salem Witch Trials. However, it's not just the story that makes the movie so fascinating and terrifying. There's the acting; in particular, the patriarch, William, played by Ralph Ineson is fantastic. His low, deep, gruff voice will creep you out even if he's saying the most complimentary of things. The rest of the cast is great as well... the matriarch, Katherine's descent into madness is both difficult to watch, as well as infuriating. I think the thing, though, that makes the movie its own is the dialogue. They all speak in the Jacobean dialogue of the time. It's difficult, at moments, to pick up exactly what was said, but it all works to add to the unsettling nature of the film. Then, finally, there's the spine-chilling soundtrack mixed with the claustrophobic cinematography that makes The Witch frightening as hell.

Now, as much as I can build this up and as much as the film has been built up already... like I said earlier... it's not so much that 'scary' in terms of what the standard audience member is looking for. If you're a high school kid going on a date looking for your girl to leap into your arms or grab your junk that you're hiding in your bucket of popcorn, you're going to be sorely disappointed. This is a horror film for movie fans. If you can appreciate a terrifying ambiance and a chilling ride that keeps your heart beating fast for an entire film, rather than something popping out unexpectedly, then you'll enjoy it. If you're looking for a grotesque bloodbath, you also will be disappointed. But, if you want to sit in a theater and be severely unnerved for an hour and a half, I believe The Witch is the horror film for you.

Last
year I called my shots pretty damn well. I was only fooled a couple of
times and those were some pretty controversial choices (probably)
#whoremembersthisshit? Anyway, 2015 was a pretty sweet year for white
people. White movies reigned supreme. As they should. White people are
obviously God's children that only deserve his love and respect
#Jesuswaswhite. So, for all the whitey's out there who want the
well-deserved recognition for their whiteness... I have compiled a list
of Oscar predictions to discuss when out with friends sharing wine,
eating kale and discussing Paul Rudd. #whitelivesmatter

Not
to take away from all of the well-deserved whiteness from all of these
movies, there is the possibility of ten nominations. They used eight of
them. So, I mean you could've used those two spots to holla at Dope or Straight Outta Compton or Beasts of No Nation
or, you know, completely not use them at all because ethnic movies are
#inferior. So, of the white movies I can say that they are all very good
movies... with very good white people in them. All are enjoyable and
most of them are deserving of the Oscar... but who will the old white
people vote for? The one about white people on Wall Street? The one
with the white people during the Cold War? The one with the white girl
from Ireland? The one with the white person on Mars (is that technically
immigration...?). Or the one with the white dude who gets maliciously
attacked, unprovoked, by a BROWN bear? #buildawall

What's Going To Win: The Revenant (However I could see it going to Spotlight too)What Should Win: The Revenant or Spotlight or a well timed discussion of diversity.

It's
kind of hard to give a shit about the Oscars this year. I mean, for a
budding screenwriter it's the Super Bowl. And as a white man, it's
doing everything it can to keep us on top. But, it's just going to be
underwhelming this year. Yes, all of the movies were very white good. And if The Revenant wins it definitely deserves it. But when you give an award to the cutest identical twin... it's kind of fucking stupid.

These
awards are so fucking white this year they nominated not one, not two,
but THREE GINGERS. #nosouls. None of them have a shot in hell at
winning, but can you get any whiter? So, look, legit I know that Concussion was
not that brilliant of a movie. So, it didn't deserve a Best Pic nod...
but my boy Will Smith was as good as I've ever seen him. Cranston is a
must, DiCaprio is a must... everyone else was the same plain yogurt
flavor. Coulda blacked it up a bit #thatwasn'tracist #Ipromise.

Who's Going To Win: Leonardo DiCaprioWho Should Win: Leonardo
DiCaprio or the fact that people will never stop using the argument
that there "aren't enough roles written for black actors" #Jesuswaswhite

You
KNOW the Academy gon give Leo his damn Award. And overlooking the fact
that he was born of white descent... he deserves it. He really does.
Dude has paid his dues tenfold. Then again, I think the wait was worth
it. This really was his best performance. Wolf of Wall Street was a great performance, but not that difficult of one. The only movie I've seen him in where he's been as great was The Departed and dude wasn't even nominated for that one. He was nominated for Blood Diamond #whiteAfricansbetterthanBlackones

Real talk: Yo, Tessa Thompson from Creed KILLED
IT. Shit, that role was made for an Oscar... chick had a hearing
problem #canyousaydisability? Yet, we had to overlook her performance in
favor of making sure J-Law got ANOTHER nomination. No one loved Joy.
No one gave a shit about that movie when they left the theater. Yet,
it's another year that J-Law had a movie come out, so she gotta get put
up because white.

Who's Going To Win: Brie LarsonWho Should Win: Brie
Larson or Hollywood big wigs who paid Brie Larson a tenth of what
anyone in the Best Actor Category was paid for their film.

For realz-- Room was a heartbreaking white
movie and Brie Larson really does deserve the award. This finally
showcased her talent to the general public and it legitimately should be
her. The only competition she has, in my opinion, is Saoirse Ronan
about the WHITE IRISH immigrant who came over to the US to start a new
life. Uhm.... fuck. This looks bad. Yeah, damn, Academy, like I know
it was only semi-on-purpose, but this shit starting to look intentional.

Okay. Finally we got a diverse movie in the mix with Creed. Wait... what?!?! It's the ONLY white dude from Creed? Ah, goddamn it. Look, this is probably the most fuckbiscuit category. You left out TWO actors from Beasts of No Nation
(Idris Elba and the kid) who turned in magnificent performances. But
no... we got Christian Bale randomly selected from a fucking white
ensemble film who wasn't even the BEST ONE FROM THE FILM. But, he did
have a glass eye #fullretard. Oh, wait, there's another white ensemble
film actor nominated in Mark Ruffalo who did no better or worse than
anyone else acting around him including Michael Keaton? Oh, okay. Yeah.
These are must-haves. Fuckers.

Who's Going To Win: Sylvester StalloneWho Should Win: Sylvester Stallone/Tom Hardy or the bear from The Revenant proving that even ethnic animals only get cast playing thugs.

I
was on the Stallone bandwagon for a good long while because he legit
blew me away with his Rocky character for the seventh time. But, then I
started to realize that this amazement probably stemmed from the fact
that I forgot Sly could actually act. Then, I saw The Revenant a
second time and Tom Hardy was the bee's tits. I felt hate for his character
I've only felt a few times before. No one else (on the list) left me
that emotionally scarred. He deserves it. Sly will get it.

I
think Oprah once said, "Damn it feels good to be a gangsta." Those
words could not ring truer than they do for the category of Best
Supporting Actress. I mean, you've got gangsta-ass Rachel McAdams who
honestly blends in so well to her film Spotlight I forgot she was
even in it. And Kate Winslet was able to recite Aaron Sorkin dialogue
quickly just as he intended. Then, there's Rooney Mara who plays a
lesbian. Oh, shit, Academy... a lesbian and a cross-dresser? I guess I
should ease up on the bitterness of the ethnicity issues here, 'cause it
looks like you already got it under control.Who's Going To Win: Alicia VikanderWho Should Win: Jennifer Jason Leigh or the tears of a thousand black people who weren't even asked to be in Steve Jobs.

This is the only major nominated movie that I didn't see. I was on my Oscar run seeing movie after movie day after day and The Danish Girl
was the only one I didn't end up seeing. After awhile I heard that the
movie was verrrrrryyyyy 'meh' and the only reason to see it was for
Vikander's performance in it. That's exactly how I felt about Redmayne's
last movie The Theory of Everything. I didn't like it at all,
but he was great in it... which doesn't really mean I had to see it. So,
I didn't see it. I'll see it eventually. She's apparently great, but
Jennifer Jason Leigh as some crazy bitch outlaw HAD to have been a lot
more entertaining and award-worthy. I mean, she was a woman who kept
getting punched out by dudes the entire movie and had a black eye the
entire time. This type of female abuse should be making these old ass
Oscar voters just a little bit hard.

If you had told me that the director of Anchorman and Stepbrothers would
be among the crackers (and one Mexican) who were nominated for Best
Director I would've laughed in your, supposedly, white face (I don't
know many black people). However, dude directed a hell of a movie. He's
one of the whiteys that really deserves to be on the list. Inarritu is
the only non-white face in the bunch, but he won Best Director last year
so now the Academy considers him an honorary white person. They see no
ethnicity with former winners. I feel like Abrahamson was a strange
choice especially because they Academy missed their chance to give
Spielberg or Ridley Scott another nomination. They're like the director
equivalents of Meryl Streep or J-Law.

Who's Going To Win: Alejandro InarrituWho Should Win: George Miller or Ava DuVernay for her wonderful directorial debut in last year's Selma... a film that was nominated WITHOUT A NOD TO IT'S BLACK FEMALE DIRECTOR! She should win this year or at least get an apology note. #racismisdead

I mean, it's probably going to be Inarritu because what he accomplished with The Revenant was nothing short of extraordinary... but dude... did you see Mad Max??
Dude came back thirty plus years later and re-made his OWN movie. Not
only did he remake it, he made it better and crazier than the original.
It was honestly one of the best movies of last year and was, in my
opinion, the best directed movie of the last year.

While
there was a significant amount of white animated movies, I have to give
it to the Academy on this one because there were two foreign animated
movies (that stand zero chance of winning) on the list. One from Asia
and one from Mexico (I think... I did just enough research that I found
the filmmakers names to be from Mexico and Asia... could not have
been... I'm just channeling my inner Academy here). I do think, however,
that The Peanuts Movie was a delightful little film honoring the
once revered comic strip. However, there was a black kid in the movie
which may have hindered its chances. Then again, he was an animated
black child... so does it really count?What's Going To Win: Inside OutWhat Should Win: Inside Out

Inside Out was,
without a doubt, the best animated movie of 2015 by a long shot. It was
emotionally resonant with legitimately anyone who has kids or anyone
who has ever been a kid. It dealt with the colorful emotions (or as the
Academy likes to refer to them as: emotions of color) of a little girl
and having to deal with uprooting her life and moving to a new city.
It's a gorgeous, near-perfect film and it deserves the award.
Especially because of it's incredibly diverse color scheme (then again,
there were no brown emotions were there...?) Have I hit the racism nail
on the head yet? #obviouslyOther Predictions:

Best Original Screenplay:What's Going To Win: SpotlightWhat Should Win: Straight Outta Compton or the fact that you realize this is the only award nomination that movie got and its writers are white.

Best Adapted Screenplay: What's Going To Win: The Big ShortWhat Should Win: The Big Short or
the fact that the Academy Awards are in its beginning phases of dying
if they keep up what is a highly offensive class of nominations led by
some seriously misguided and old fucking individuals.

How Many Times Chris Rock Will Call Out The Academy On Their Bullshit:How Many Times He's Going To: A LotHow Many Times He Should: More than that.

How Many Categories I'm Going To Pick Correctly: I'm Going To Get: 7/9How Many I Should Get: 1/9 (They should surprise the hell out of everyone and give all the Oscars to Idris Elba)

Consensus:

The
Oscars are careening downhill very quickly. If you're a white person
who likes to take white bubble baths and bathe in your white privilege
and think there was nothing wrong with the way this year's and even the
last few year's Oscars have been handled, then this is the show to
watch. However, you are also probably voting for Donald Trump or Marco
Rubio or Ted Cruz and you should hit yourself in the genitals several
times with a power cord. If you are a culturally conscious person who
prides him/herself in having an ethnically diverse background/friend
group... you're probably not going to watch. So, really the show is
only going to be for those who are true cinephiles like myself... and I
can tell you this... if they keep this up, even I won't be watching for
much longer.

Monday, February 15, 2016

This is how many superhero movies come out: I find myself repeating the phrase "I'm so sick of superhero movies" over and over and over again in these reviews. And I am. Yet, because binge watching TV has become the new norm for us (thanks Netflix, you dicks) I have to keep up with the story. It's never truly over. Oh, I've seen three Iron Man's and two Avengers films... well, obviously I'm going to have to see the new Captain America... it's just the next episode. Except I'm sick of the show. I'm sick of the characters and the same CGI and explosions. But, I have to know how this shit ends. Now, every once in awhile there is a brand new and original "superhero" film that breaks ground and changes the game so that it doesn't FEEL like you're watching the same standard Marvel fare. Guardians of the Galaxy did it. Kick-Ass took the superhero genre and flipped it on its ear. And The Dark Knight (a reference I will continue to use) felt like a great crime drama than a superhero movie. So, now we've got Deadpool... the anti-superhero. And, I will admit, it's a lot better than I expected. However, and I'm sure I'll get chastised for this, other than the excessive gore, gratuitous nudity, and foul language... it wasn't exactly that far off from, say, Iron Man.

Just hear me out. So, we have an origin story about giant dickhead Wade, who falls in love with a hooker with a heart of gold, finds out he has cancer, decides to use the superhero program thingy to rid his cancer and becomes a burned-looking dude who can't get hurt. The catch: he's still a vulgar dickhead. He wears the spandex, shoots the bad guys and calls them cocks while doing so. That's the only difference. He pairs up with a couple of unknown X-Men, tracks down the bad guys, and has a big fight scene complete with a big CGI boat explosion at the end. And once I was aware that this was the case, it kind of took me out of the story a little. Not enough to ruin the movie for me... just a little bit. So, I guess if you're a fan of superhero films and the Marvel universe, but you're tired that they're all family-friendly PG-13 fare... this is the superhero film to end all superhero films.

What Deadpool does, however, that is exceptional is this: it takes risks. Even though it really does follow the same superhero structure, it does everything in its power to convince you that it isn't... in a good way. The opening credits list nobody's names but things like "The Comic Relief" or "A Celebrity Cameo". There's the anti-hero Reynolds who is allowed to say what EVER the hell he wants to say and as crassly as he can, and for the most part it's funny. About 85% of the quips out of Reynolds' mouth is pure comedic gold. 15% you're shaking your head wondering how any of it made the final cut (a lot of these lines are wasted in the trailer, thank God). There's awkward, yet hilarious sex scenes, amazingly violent action (which, I still think could've gone harder, but it was still good) and it was a very risky move for everyone involved. We can see now that it's definitely going to pay off. For a film that is adapted from a comic book and following a very specific structure... it's pretty original. I realize that's kind of an oxymoronic thing to say, but it's true. And it's aware of this as well. Every time it starts to fall back into the structure of a superhero film, Deadpool will break the fourth wall and talk to the audience reminding us that this is the way shit is done... he may not agree with it... but it's happened.

So, did I like Deadpool? Yes. Am I recommending it to you? Absolutely. Is it already in the running for best film of the year? No. It was very entertaining, but I'm sick of superhero movies. And unlike Guardians of the Galaxy and Kick-Ass it didn't take me OUT of that world. I was still very much in it. The biggest difference between Deadpool and Iron Man is that Tony Stark is restricted by a PG-13 rating and Deadpool is not. If Stark got his own R rated movie, it would probably be a lot like this one. And those are decent films too... I'm just sick of them. So, here's hoping that Deadpool does more good than bad. We've already seen that an R rated superhero movie can still make box office bank (and I'm hoping and praying that Suicide Squad doesn't puss out and hit us with PG-13). It's a fun ass movie... but will not change your mind about being sick of the Marvel world. Okay, maybe a little bit.

Here's a tip for Hollywood that nobody will listen to: stop making sequels to comedies from more than ten years ago. I'm not saying that they're bad. They're not awful. I'll give them that. But, they are tired and too far removed from the original that there's not a chance in Hell any of them can live up to their predecessors. When you take a great character comedy like Derek Zoolander and then fifteen years later make the sequel-- you're proving that all you have to do is make a sequel to anything and it will make money. Once this becomes a full fledged thing... we won't get any new characters. We won't get the next actor to give us a movie surrounding a hilarious character LIKE a Derek Zoolander or LIKE a Ron Burgandy or LIKE a Harry and Lloyd. These were great movies with great characters that didn't need sequels. Then, because Hollywood takes zero chances anymore with originality, they decided to make sequels of these much older characters because fuck you that's why. Zoolander 2 isn't a very good movie... but, the original isn't THAT fantastic. It's a great character in a funny film that should've stood alone. The sequel isn't much different.

We meet Derek in present day ostracised from the world because his "center for kids who can't read good..." was built out of materials that made the model-sized one and collapsed killing his wife. He had his child taken away from him and became a recluse. Now, there are people out there killing famous celebrities and all of them have been killed using a Zoolander signature look. So, he's recruited by INTERPOL and reunited with Hansel to figure out who is behind it. There are some new characters like the INTERPOL agent (Penelope Cruz) and a fashion mogul Alexanya (Kristin Wiig) as well as some old ones Mugatu (Will Ferrell) and Billy Zane (Billy Zane). There's not much to it and it's hit or miss in spots. But, what comes across entirely is that the film did not need to be made.

Forgive me, but the first Zoolander was kind of a fluke. I really like the movie, don't get me wrong, and it certainly has it's really funny moments, but it should've been a one and done kind of film. The sequel definitely channels the energy and style of the original, but it's done using mostly re-hashed jokes and bad puns. Then again, there are some very funny moments in the second film as well. Ferrell, who wasn't all that famous in the first film, nails it in this one. Stiller and Owen Wilson still have that great chemistry that they've always had. But the rest of the humor seems to stem from them trying to cram as many recognizable cameos into one film as they can. And none of them do anything that particularly funny... the joke is that they're on screen. Probably the funniest cameo in the entire film is Benedict Cumberbatch and that's the only one that's effectively ruined by the trailer.

Look, the bottom line is that if you enjoyed the first film, you'll probably enjoy most of the new one. Yes, it's a bit more annoying and loud and crass and dumb, but it's still in the same vein. Just like Anchorman 2 and Dumb and Dumber To both had their moments and captured the essence of the originals, you were keenly aware that it wasn't as good, would never be as good, and didn't really ever need to exist. Let's stop trying to force comedic sequels to great characters and start making up some new great characters that twenty years from now can be ruined.

For those unfamiliar with the style of the Coen Brothers movies may be taken a little bit aback by Hail, Caesar. The Coens are a very specific type of entertainment. They're infamous for beginning their writing process by just sitting down and writing the script. No pre-planning. No outlining. No multiple drafts... just writing. Almost no one in the industry can get away with this, but, somehow, they can. This process has led to some of the greatest films of our time (Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou, Burn After Reading, A Serious Man, Inside Llewyn Davis). These are all very different films. Some are slapstick-y, some are very violent and slow, some rely on humorous verbal jousting, yet all carry with it that Coen brothers feel. Other films they've helmed that are far outside the comedic scale are No Country For Old Men and True Grit, and while these films are in no way funny, they still retain that Coen essence. Finally, their best film in my opinion, The Big Lebowski is not just their funniest film, but one of the funniest films ever made. But, it's very clearly a Coen movie. So, there is a bit of a taste that needs to be developed for them. I've yet to meet someone who loves The Big Lebowski after only seeing it one time. It's an acquired taste, but once you realize its brilliance, will stick with you forever. Hail, Caesar, while it isn't their best film, still has that magical Coen spirit.

The film resembles their more subtle and quirky films such as Burn After Reading and Intolerable Cruelty. It's loaded with characters and actors and multiple story lines that are almost farcical. The over-arching storyline, however, involves a 1950s Hollywood fixer, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) getting word that the star of the studio's biggest budget picture, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) has been kidnapped. This all happens while he's trying to clean up the messes of several of the studio's other pictures including: a pregnant starlet (Scarlett Johannson), a cowboy turned serious actor (Alden Ehrenreich) and the director unable to handle the fact that he can't act (Ralph Fiennes), twin reporters about to break the Whitlock disappearance to the media (both played by Tilda Swinton), and a pretty-boy actor in a musical number (Channing Tatum). Everything plays out very strangely and uniquely in perfect Coen fashion.

Everyone in their respective roles are, of course, perfectly cast. They all appear just briefly, serve their purpose and get out. Really, the only actor coursing through all of the stories is Brolin, an to some extent, Clooney. But, it's a really fun movie IF you're a fan of Coen fare. If you're simply looking for a goofy, by the numbers, Hollywood comedy, you may be slightly disappointed. It begins a little slowly, but it builds nicely and ties everything together perfectly. The Coens have successfully done it again and have really yet to have a terrible movie. Sure, most people aren't the biggest fan of, say, The Ladykillers, but even then, a bad Coen film is still better than 90% of the comedy that comes out every year. Thankfully, this time, they've got a gem.